Good question I think it depends on if being not nice was the full intent of the post in which case it should be removed. If not being nice is a side effect to some other intent then it should be edited.
– Philip KirkbrideJan 30 '17 at 11:58

IMHO editing to remove that part beats having the whole thing flagged as rude or abusive.
– EJoshuaS - Reinstate MonicaJan 31 '17 at 23:56

Yes, I agree - I think that, if a post is salvageable through editing, it should be. But basically, the only three choices are to leave it "as is" in spite of the fact that it violates site policy, remove it completely, or edit it. I think editing is the best choice even if it does conflict with the post's intent.
– EJoshuaS - Reinstate MonicaFeb 1 '17 at 0:09

1

I don't believe the post you linked to in your question regarding when to flag things as spam vs rude/offensive applies in every case that an edit for the be nice policy does. spam is for... well, spam, rude/offensive is for extreme cases. In this theoretical case you simply have a dispute between two (maybe more?) users that the editing system can't solve, thus making it an edge case for a moderator to deal with. If it was truely a rude/abusive post, editing would not be the correct action.
– Kevin BFeb 1 '17 at 20:50

6 Answers
6

The "Be Nice" policy, as I interpret it, is intended to shield the users themselves from abusive or overly aggressive language directed at them. Language that attacks another person should definitely be removed.

It's worth highlighting "directed at them", since a lot of people can leap to conclusions to believe that every pointed word in public discourse can be made to be an ad hominem attack.

If it's not directed at them, yet they feel like it could be, my opinion would be that they should assume good intentions. The very likely scenario is that no offense is intended at all, and that offense instead is being taken.

(This applies strongest to Metas, since the main site doesn't really have a place for more "liberal" discourse.)

There's a world of difference between calling an idea or concept "stupid", and calling a person or their beliefs "stupid". One of these things is intended to deride the person the remarks are addressed at, whereas the other is intended to reflect the person's opinion of the idea or concept.

In the context of the main site, I personally think that it's stupid to require the use of StringTokenizer when regexes are readily available. Calling the OP "stupid" because they are using it is counterproductive at best.

In the context of Meta, there are actions and suggestions which I've derided as stupid - here's an example. I'm not [intending to] insult or call the editors themselves "stupid" in that context, but I find their actions to be stupid, which is a remark and opinion on their actions and not their person.

I'm commenting here to take a stand against the stupid, immoral and repugnant ideas expressed in this answer (though I'm certainly not targeting an attack at Makoto, of course).
– Mark AmeryJan 31 '17 at 23:40

Your answer is contradicted by Shog, and the Be Nice policy explicitly calls out, "terms that feel personal even when they're applied to posts." (I don't think it's unreasonable to make the jump from "posts" to "political opinions," which are more closely tied to a person than their posts are.) Assuming good intentions also doesn't negate the potential of editing out content that don't comply while still preserving the intent.
– jpmc26Feb 1 '17 at 1:27

2

@Makoto I'm not sure what you think I'm strawmanning. I'm literally just quoting the language that was used to attack ideas in the post that inspired Tiny Giant's question here, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether using such language in that way is problematic (on which question I have no strong view, or perhaps more correctly have complicated and conflicted views that don't boil down to hard support for either side). I don't see how literally quoting somebody, in a context that doesn't change the meaning of their words, can constitute a strawman.
– Mark AmeryFeb 1 '17 at 11:27

There's a world of difference between calling an idea or concept "stupid", and calling a person or their beliefs "stupid". How do you separate ideas and concepts, which you deem suitable for derision, from beliefs? I disagree with the whole spirit of the answer anyway. When you deride (instead of criticize) my ideas/answers/whatever, that is clearly an attack on a personal level. Your answer is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. (hint, hint)
– dasdingonesinFeb 6 '17 at 13:56

@dasdingonesin: You're perfectly free to think that my ideas or my answers are stupid. That doesn't have a bearing on my person or my level of intelligence, either. I also don't see how it's a personal attack on oneself, given that at no point is anyone calling me stupid, nor is anyone calling anyone explicitly stupid for having those ideas. My belief on your view of it being a personal attack: you need to have thicker skin. A person can be a good person with bad ideas, but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.
– MakotoFeb 6 '17 at 18:36

In the situation where a post is otherwise on-topic and constructive but contains a few words that violate the Be-Nice policy, does removing the wording that violates the Be-Nice policy count as deviation from intent?

There is no general answer to this, it depends on both the author's intent, and the author's willingness to potentially change that intent with a rewording.

In these cases, the best course of action is:

State your concerns to the author, offer to propose an edit.

If they change it themselves, mission accomplished.

If they allow you to change it, try your best, but accept that they may revert it. You may want to make a note in the edit summary about this, so reviewers know what is going on.

If they do not allow you to change it, well, at least your question about changing intent was answered.

Failing that, you have a few options on how to proceed:

If the question is rude or offensive, you may flag it.

You may politely explain your issues in a comment.

You may ignore it and move on.

You may simply down-vote it.

What I would not do is engage in any sort of back-and-forth comment argument, and especially do not engage in any sort of edit rollback war. If you make an edit and the OP rolls it back, you may not be satisfied, but you do want to take the high road, abide by their decision, and pursue one of the other above courses of action if appropriate.

There's a lot of paths to choose but TL;DR: Ask the author, this is always the best general first step here.

Note that you can suggest / apply (depending on your site privileges) an edit without asking the author first. Personally, I usually (although not always -- for example here it didn't seem like asking would be productive) ask the author first, just because I believe it's polite, and this is what I recommend doing. But that's up to you. Just note that if your edit is rolled back, responding with another rollback is usually counter-productive. At that point you'd want to engage in some kind of discussion or just let it be. So while you can just edit, I wouldn't call it the "best" approach.

Still, on occasion, simply submitting the edit, especially if you are confident and the user is new, can set a good example. In those cases I'll often leave a comment such as "I have edited your post because ...".

I hope this post made sense; I'm a little tired right now and the words seem all jumbled up to me. I'll clean it up later.
– Jason CJan 30 '17 at 3:05

So even though the content violates the be-nice policy, you would rather it continue to exist and be not-nice as opposed to editing to remove it?
– user4639281Jan 30 '17 at 3:08

1

@TinyGiant Well that's up to you. At the end of the day it's the author's call on how they want to word the post. So if you spot a be-nice problem, then offer / suggest an edit and it is refused / rejected / rolled back, at that point you really don't have a choice but to pursue another course of action: You could flag it, you could leave a comment, you could down vote it, you could move on and let it meet whatever fate it is headed for, or some combination of those. If it's straight up inflammatory I would go for a flag, a mod will eventually handle it appropriately. Make sense?
– Jason CJan 30 '17 at 3:11

I was under the impression that following the be-nice policy was vastly more important than... well... not improving content. Notice that at no point in your answer do you say that editing to remove the content is even remotely a possibility unless the author has first approved the removal of the offensive content. I think that flies in the face of all other policy on offensive content. But I suppose the important thing to take from all of this is that it is extremely important that offensive content be allowed to survive as long as possible.
– user4639281Jan 30 '17 at 3:12

@TinyGiant Sure, but you're still limited to site mechanics, and the OP can roll back your edits regardless of community philosophy. But consider this: If the post is truly not nice, and if the be-nice policy is important, then the community will handle it appropriately. You just need to have faith in that. The question will be closed, or others will chime in and support you, or the question will be downvoted, but in any case, the community as a whole does act to encourage policies that it supports. So if it's not nice but your own efforts don't improve it, don't worry, you won't be alone.
– Jason CJan 30 '17 at 3:15

@TinyGiant Well I personally believe it's polite to ask first. But you certainly could just suggest the edit, and I do that myself from time to time, too. Same deal applies. Just don't get into a rollback war, and be sure to leave an explanation in the edit summary. I'll update the answer now.
– Jason CJan 30 '17 at 3:16

Sure the OP can roll your edit back, but no one here has even suggested trying to edit until approval has been granted by the OP, in which case a roll-back from the OP would be nonsensical. The point is that the post would be otherwise on-topic and constructive, excluding some minor offensive content.
– user4639281Jan 30 '17 at 3:17

1

@TinyGiant I just edited my answer to include that possibility. But I maintain that asking the author first is the best approach, although not the only approach. And I don't always take said best approach myself, admittedly. Sometimes I feel it is justified, other times, I probably could have done better. Here is an example where I felt a substantial edit was justified without asking -- that post was going downhill fast.
– Jason CJan 30 '17 at 3:21

The real point here I guess is that I'm wondering whether removal of offensive content can even qualify as a deviation from intent being that there is a zero tolerance policy for offensive content.
– user4639281Jan 30 '17 at 3:30

@TinyGiant Well, that's a tricky one, and it really depends on the case. The thing is: Having a zero tolerance policy in place doesn't affect whether or not removing offensive content changes the intent. These are separate things. So there's actually a different question that you should ask: Is it OK to change the intent of a post if doing so is required in order to stick to a zero-tolerance policy? To that I'd say, yes, IMO, but you still may not get the ideal result, and you still may have to resort to a different course of action, and you do have to handle non-ideal results gracefully.
– Jason CJan 30 '17 at 3:34

@TinyGiant The general answer provided here when the user refuses to make improvements (even by accepting your edits) is to flag it. Since you pointed out that the Rude flag is inappropriate, then it seems like custom would be the way to go. This, of course, assumes the system is working normally and as intended and is not ignoring content that's in violation. If the system is failing for some reason, I think that's a separate question than the one you asked here (at least originally).
– jpmc26Feb 2 '17 at 2:38

Really, there are only three things you can do with any particular post: leave it "as is" (in this case, in spite of an obvious policy violation), edit it, or close and/or delete it.

I think that editing (even if it does arguably conflict with the author's intent) is the lesser of three evils in case you describe. (The alternatives are to tolerate an obvious policy violation or to delete an otherwise-acceptable question).

I've always been of the opinion that, if a post can be salvaged it should be (and, based on your description, it sounds like it definitely can be).

The question is invalid, as I see the circumstances you outline as contradictory. That is, it's not possible to have a constructive point which cannot be made just as effectively without adherence to "Be Nice".

Remember: "Be Nice" is not specifically about the use of a word or two. You can't say "you used word X, and therefore you're not being nice". Not really.

It's about the clear intent and meaning of the post. It's about whether you're making personal attacks. It's about whether you're being respectful of the subject matter at hand. It's about a lot of things beyond the presence of a word or two (though obviously there are some words that almost always qualify as not "being nice").

So I would say that one of the following is in play:

The point being made is fundamentally not constructive.

The OP/editors haven't tried hard enough to "be nice".

The post is adequately "nice" as is; it's just not something you want to hear.

If you want suggestions for what you should do if you come across such a post, I see no reason not to treat it as you would any violation of "Be Nice". If you edit it and the OP or other editors roll it back, flag for moderator attention, explaining what about the post you don't think it's "being nice". If the moderators think that it is fine as is, and that it is sufficiently nice, then that's essentially that.

I think it's fairly narrow-minded to say that no on-topic post could possibly contain content which violates the be-nice policy and be an otherwise on-topic and constructive post. Things can be not-nice without the author intending them to be not-nice. Otherwise anyone could say that they didn't intend to be not-nice and the policy would be invalid.
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 1:18

1

I think you're actually saying, "No, it doesn't violate the intent. It's okay to edit to improve." But that kind of gets lost in other stuff...
– jpmc26Feb 1 '17 at 1:22

2

@TinyGiant: That's not what I said. What I said was that you cannot have a constructive point in a post which cannot be edited to be inline with the "Be Nice" policy. It's literally the second sentence of my post.
– Nicol BolasFeb 1 '17 at 1:32

Well then maybe I'm just confused about your intent as you're saying my question is invalid.
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 2:04

3

"It's about a lot of things beyond the presence of a word or two" Fucking Amen.
– jscsFeb 1 '17 at 3:05

In other cases edit it, if your edit is rolled back, stop editing, perhaps leave a comment for the OP, and as a last resort (when you really need to) flag it for moderator attention. If it comes to a flag, you probably shouldn't flag it as rude or abusive, use a custom flag and explain the situation as best you can.

I'm not asking about any post in particular. I'm asking about the general situation described in my question.
– user4639281Jan 30 '17 at 2:59

6

So your answer is, "Yes, it does", "No, it does not," or, "Yes, it does unless the post is posted by an SO employee"? The question is valid outside the context of the particular post that inspired it, making this practically a non-answer.
– jpmc26Feb 1 '17 at 0:43

2

@jpmc26 context matters... Judging from all of your input on this subject it really looks like you're looking for any angle to shoot down Joel's post. Let's not pretend it's a general question when it very clearly isn't.
– apaulFeb 1 '17 at 0:58

1

I am, or at least to have the problem content edited out of it, and I've presented a reason based case for that. However, this question does ask about the general case. Even if the inspiration of the question is to compare the general case with what's happening elsewhere right now, that doesn't make it an illegitimate question. It hasn't violated any site rules, either. If you feel strongly about it, do the comparison yourself and mention Joel's post explicitly; that would be fine. But answering the overall question is still appropriate and desirable.
– jpmc26Feb 1 '17 at 1:14

As is downvoting this answer for not doing so and calling it out in comments.
– jpmc26Feb 1 '17 at 1:20

@jpmc26 I did mention Joel's post explicitly. This question came across as pretty thinly veiled, so I chose to address the specific rather than the general, knowing that someone else would cover general.
– apaulFeb 1 '17 at 1:33

1

@apaul34208 so you didn't answer the question asked because you didn't want to answer the question asked, but posted commentary on a different topic instead? If you want to answer a different question, please do so on that question.
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 5:18

@Tiny Giant It seems like you're deliberately missing the point. It also seems like you asked this question in a general way purely to provide ammunition against a specific question.
– apaulFeb 1 '17 at 8:18

2

You are deliberately missing the point. I don't care what you think it seems like. I asked the question to get an answer to the damn question. If you want to be a troll, please don't do it on my questions, or at the very least, answer the damn question as well.
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 15:26

2

There is already a question that asks whether the specific wording youre talking about violates the be nice policy or not. This question is asking specifically about the general situation described in the question with the built-in assumption that the wording (again not referencing the post your talking about but rather a purely theoretical post) used does in fact violate the be nice rule. Your answer exists only to disrupt my question.
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 15:53

Whether or not anyone else deliberately misinterpreted my question as asking something completely different than what it is actually asking is irrelevant. This question itself has absolutely nothing to do with that question, as can be seen by reading the damn question. I didn't piss in your cheerios, why do you have to piss in mine?
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 19:24

5

The reason I'm giving you a hard time is that it's beginning to look more and more like most of the disruption "the post" is causing is really being caused by all the people who are all riled up about how the post could cause disruption. It's become a self fulfilling prophecy...
– apaulFeb 1 '17 at 19:58

2

I honestly don't give a shit whether anyone thinks the other post violates the be-nice policy or not in the context of this question. Couldn't care less. In the context of this question I'm trying to find out whether the community thinks that removing content that violates the be-nice policy from an otherwise on-topic and constructive post can deviation from intent be used as a rollback or rejection reason. That's it that's all. Obviously I can't possibly use this as fuel for anything related to that other question because the staff have stated that the rules don't apply to that post.
– user4639281Feb 1 '17 at 20:01

1

@TinyGiant Just want to mention that apaul hasn't violated any rules with this answer that I can tell, and it is at least an "attempt to answer" under normal site policy. I agree that not answering the general case is a problem (and frustrating), but we've expressed our concerns. apaul has decided not to edit, so our best action is to downvote and move on here. I understand your frustration, but we have to be super careful about getting into arguments because of it; we can't risk violating the policy while we advocate for it.
– jpmc26Feb 2 '17 at 2:44

Of course removing words from a post could alter the intent regardless of whether or not they may violate the be nice policy. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis, trying to come up with a general rule or guideline on this is futile.

Are we just supposed to leave the vulgar words or content that otherwise violates the Be-Nice as is?

No. "Obviously", if you feel strongly about it leave a comment or raise a flag (at your discretion) instead of getting into an edit war. The editor being the op or another user shouldn't matter.